4 ms·

When you look at how by the book Communism, not necessarily the one Marx wrote about, runs their economies, you start to see a lot of parallels to how companies

by hef19898 3y ago

When you look at how by the book Communism, not necessarily the one Marx wrote about, runs their economies, you start to see a lot of parallels to how companies run their businesses. The mistake is to apply those priciples at too high a level, as it takes away some of the individual decisions and incentives, and not everything can be managed centrally, especially the customer demand side. Communist industry and economy worked reasonably well for the stuff were the state is the natural customer in any society: defence. Everything else, not so much.

ben_w 3y ago
> Communist industry and economy worked reasonably well for the stuff were the state is the natural customer in any society: defence. Everything else, not so much. One thing I've been wondering: would housing, transport infrastructure, energy grid(s)[0], banking and similar basic financial services, water, basic food[1], education, emergency services, healthcare, waste disposal in general and public toilets in particular, be in the same category here as defence? Possibly even all of the primary economy, so include all mining as well as agriculture? [0] both electricity and physical fuels [1] at the level of where most of the calories and proteins come from, possibly even "basics" ranges in supermarkets, but not at the level of restaurants or fancy food ranges in supermarkets
- hef19898 3y ago
  Yes, I'd say so. With the exception of drug availability issues, which started if I am not mistaken in the mid to late 70s (basically when the USSR started to really fall behind the West technologically), those aspects worked reasonably well in the USSR. And before someone says Venezuela or North Korea, the former is a deeply corrupt cleptocracy while the latter used to be the last stone-age version of Stalinism before the whole nation was turned into an open air concentration camp by its dictator.
  - mlrtime 3y ago
    You've said "reasonably well" a couple times here.... I think there can be book written between the gap of "reasonably well" and "prosperous". And these things are all relative of course... if "reasonably well" is the best in the world at the time, then great. But when you have another system to compare to at the same time, "reasonably well" falls apart very quickly. I'm not sure if you lived in a Soviet country during these times, but I think you will get MANY opinions that this was not working well.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      It is not to glorify the Soviet system. Looking back so, from the end of the Stalin era to, say, the mid-70s, the USSR did compete rather well so: - military and space tech was mostly on par (a bunch conflicts, incl. Vietnam, show that) - economically, the USSR was stable - people were not starving Of course, the was less luxury and consumerism, but that was true for a lot of other countries as well in Western Europe. It started to fall behind latest by the early 80s on all metrics. And for Soviet leadership, personal luxuries for the people were simply no priority. And there is no question which system "won" this conflict, is there?
      - pton_xd 3y ago
        "Stable and not dying" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a system. And anyway, they had no freedom, which is the real issue. Communist governance is fundamentally opposed to liberty; the system can't allow it.
        hef19898 3y ago
        I never endorsed it, just pointed out that it worked, it was not the fundamental failure some people want to make it.
      - NeutralCrane 3y ago
        Stalinism lasted until at least his death in 1953. So the period you are describing is all of 20 years, which is essentially a blip on the scale of nations. That same period was also marked by a widespread economic golden age by most of the victors of WWII (France, UK, Japan) and several of the losers (Japan, West Germany), which also ended around the mid-70s, just not as harshly. That’s also around the time communist China started abandoning communist economies for state capitalist ones and started its ascendancy. So the question is, was communism actually working well in that period, or was it more or less an unsustainable fluke due to the post-war boom era, and as soon as that ended it got left in the dust?

ben_w 3y ago

> Communist industry and economy worked reasonably well for the stuff were the state is the natural customer in any society: defence. Everything else, not so much. One thing I've been wondering: would housing, transport infrastructure, energy grid(s)[0], banking and similar basic financial services, water, basic food[1], education, emergency services, healthcare, waste disposal in general and public toilets in particular, be in the same category here as defence? Possibly even all of the primary economy, so include all mining as well as agriculture? [0] both electricity and physical fuels [1] at the level of where most of the calories and proteins come from, possibly even "basics" ranges in supermarkets, but not at the level of restaurants or fancy food ranges in supermarkets

hef19898 3y ago
Yes, I'd say so. With the exception of drug availability issues, which started if I am not mistaken in the mid to late 70s (basically when the USSR started to really fall behind the West technologically), those aspects worked reasonably well in the USSR. And before someone says Venezuela or North Korea, the former is a deeply corrupt cleptocracy while the latter used to be the last stone-age version of Stalinism before the whole nation was turned into an open air concentration camp by its dictator.
- mlrtime 3y ago
  You've said "reasonably well" a couple times here.... I think there can be book written between the gap of "reasonably well" and "prosperous". And these things are all relative of course... if "reasonably well" is the best in the world at the time, then great. But when you have another system to compare to at the same time, "reasonably well" falls apart very quickly. I'm not sure if you lived in a Soviet country during these times, but I think you will get MANY opinions that this was not working well.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    It is not to glorify the Soviet system. Looking back so, from the end of the Stalin era to, say, the mid-70s, the USSR did compete rather well so: - military and space tech was mostly on par (a bunch conflicts, incl. Vietnam, show that) - economically, the USSR was stable - people were not starving Of course, the was less luxury and consumerism, but that was true for a lot of other countries as well in Western Europe. It started to fall behind latest by the early 80s on all metrics. And for Soviet leadership, personal luxuries for the people were simply no priority. And there is no question which system "won" this conflict, is there?
    - pton_xd 3y ago
      "Stable and not dying" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a system. And anyway, they had no freedom, which is the real issue. Communist governance is fundamentally opposed to liberty; the system can't allow it.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        I never endorsed it, just pointed out that it worked, it was not the fundamental failure some people want to make it.
    - NeutralCrane 3y ago
      Stalinism lasted until at least his death in 1953. So the period you are describing is all of 20 years, which is essentially a blip on the scale of nations. That same period was also marked by a widespread economic golden age by most of the victors of WWII (France, UK, Japan) and several of the losers (Japan, West Germany), which also ended around the mid-70s, just not as harshly. That’s also around the time communist China started abandoning communist economies for state capitalist ones and started its ascendancy. So the question is, was communism actually working well in that period, or was it more or less an unsustainable fluke due to the post-war boom era, and as soon as that ended it got left in the dust?